Puritanism and economics

I’ve had several different people express to me the idea that the efforts for economic stimulus in the face of the current economic dislocation are misguided, because we need to “pay the price” for the excesses of the past, and that this correction will be painful, but will “put everything right” if we just let it play out.

Talk about missing the point.

Moral hazard is an important part of our economy. It’s important that returns and risk be correlated, otherwise you end up with what Krugman and others have called “lemon socialism” — privatized rewards and nationalized risk. As I write this it’s an open question what “stimulus package” the US Congress will enact; it may turn out that it in fact just amounts to an ineffective give-away of a vast amount of money.

But the idea of a massive stimulus to the economy is the right one, and it has nothing to do with nationalizing risk or rewarding bad actors. It is an attempt, through monetary policy, to prevent the major economic dislocation that would result from a deflationary spiral. This is not about making sure that the individuals who behaved like idiots don’t feel pain over the next years; this is about making sure that we all don’t end up as part of a lost economic decade like Japan experienced in the 80’s (and, at some level, still really hasn’t recovered from).

Fiscal policy hasn’t worked — the effective central bank rate in all the major western economies is 0%. This is what a liquidity trap looks like.

Massive monetary stimulus is not a particularly palatable solution. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anything else left. Insofar as we believe that the potential for true economic dislocation exists — and people way smarter than me think that it does — we’d be fools not to use whatever tools we have.

We really don’t want to end up in the part of the economic map that is labelled “Here be dragons.” Getting back from there could take a generation.

The most recent week of my employment, in sum.

It is an old saying among my people.

How do you do that, exactly?

How, exactly, do you configure your Windows box/cable modem so that NetBIOS packets end up going to your neighbor’s house?

Even if you connected the machine directly to cable modem, aren’t they both configured by default to prevent broadcast packets from reaching the WAN?

[Alternatively: is the NetBIOS traffic filling up my firewall logs due to enemy action (TCP ports 135, 137, 139, and 445), or is it plain stupidity?]

Open letter to John Gruber/Daring Fireball

Re: Gizmodo’s Brian Lam Comes Unhinged

What is your problem with Brian Lam exactly?

He said two things:

(a) professionally, I’m doing what I’m supposed to do
(b) personally, it’s hard and I find it distasteful.

Are you so insulated from the rest of the world that you’ve never been called upon to do anything professionally that you didn’t like? Never laid anyone off? Never given someone nice a bad review because they weren’t good at their job? Never had to enforce discipline on your child, even though you thought what they did was hilarious? Never had to tell someone bad news?

Brian’s in the news business. His professional opinion is that Job’s health is news. Dan Lyons agrees. You don’t. Fair enough.

Nevertheless, show him some respect. He’s honestly trying to do what he thinks is right, and he made the brave choice to say how he *felt* about it in public.

Disagree on the substance if you want, but ridicule is beneath you.

Nothing substantive to add

It’s been said earlier, more eloquently, and in more detail elsewhere; I hope that putting them together in a single post doesn’t mean that the outcome will be the same for both.

Still, I was taught to say thank you when you’re given a gift, and the differing news today leaves me thinking of both of them.

Thank you, Mr. McGoohan, for all the joy your work has given me.

Thank you, Mr. Jobs, for making beautiful things, and inspiring me to do the same.

Signal to noise

I’ve been stewing about this for a couple of days now.

Years ago, I owned a vintage Norton motorcycle — a British Racing Green ‘69 Commando fastback. I loved that bike, for all its insane impracticality. I loved it so much that I joined the Norton Owner’s group, subscribed to their snail-mail newsletter (you didn’t imagine that vintage British motorcycle geeks would use that Internet thing, did you?), the whole bit.

And when the first issue arrived in my mailbox, I immediately wrote a letter quitting the group and asking them to never send me another newsletter.

It wasn’t because there wasn’t a vast amount of useful information in the publication: there was.

It wasn’t because there wasn’t value for money in the subscription: there was.

And it certainly wasn’t because I had decided that the Norton wasn’t interesting.

What happened was that I read the newsletter and got to the 3 page column at the start which contained the “amusing” ramblings of the executive director, which mostly concerned themselves with the purported criminal activities of the Clintons (interspersed between descriptions of motorcycle trips). Murdering Vince Foster, drug running, political malfeasance — it was a greatest hits of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, condensed into a column about carb jetting.

Even though it constituted a very small part of a larger, potentially very useful whole, it destroyed the whole thing for me. The noise from that small contribution overwhelmed the signal. Whether I agreed or not (I thought the comments were borderline insane), the contextual mismatch was so great that I couldn’t absorb anything else that could possibly be contained in the magazine. I was so angry I wanted to burn the damn thing, mostly because I was so *disappointed* that something so valuable was ruined for me because this idiot couldn’t stay on topic.

Which brings me to vintage.org.

I love old computers. I’ve been collecting them for years. I’m a sustaining member of the Computer History Museum. And I’ve participated with great glee in a couple of the Vintage Computer Festival events, run by a guy named Sellam Ismail, who at one time was the software curator at the CHM. The website associated with the VCF has been a hub for the vintage computer hobby for some time.

However, this week, the home page of vintage.org now contains this:

Stop the Slaughter in Gaza

Throughout the years, in spite of repeated terrorism being wrought against the people of the Middle East by powerful Western forces, I have had to work hard to prevent myself from succumbing to the desire to use the Vintage Computer Festival as a means to promote one cause or another. No more. Only the guilty remain silent.

I might be able to overlook this; reasoned minds might disagree on the subject of Israel’s military intervention in Gaza, no matter how wildly inappropriate it is to use the VCF to promote a political view. But sadly, he goes on:

Zionism is a hateful, racist political ideology that destroys nations, cultures, and peoples. Zionism is a curse and a cancer on the world. Zionism needs to be put down, like a rabid dog is put down: swiftly, and without mercy.

That’s anti-semitism, and I will have nothing to do with it. I’m unable to look past that paragraph to see the value beyond, and I’m so angry for the stupid destruction of value that I want to throw my laptop across the room. 

Once again, the noise has overwhelmed the signal.

Space X Falcon 9 on the pad


Oh, baby. To see why this is exciting, go here.

Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night

My friends, just back from CES, tell me that there were no lines for taxis.

A more dire economic indicator is hard to imagine.

What if you rejected logic?

Fred Wilson is a prominent blogger and well known VC, but I can’t make head nor tail of this. His argument seems to be based on the assumption that everything has changed, the old rules don’t apply, and so economists’ thinking is constrained by “old ways” that don’t predict the future.

Well, other than the fact that he’s rejecting the basis for all science in one sweeping generalization, isn’t that the kind of magical thinking that got us into this mess? Wasn’t it “history is dead” assumptions that made it OK to fund companies with no business model, or to think that we could eliminate risk by packaging?

The stuff he points to at the Harvard Business Review is even more bewildering, viz: Harvard Business Online’s Umair Haque

I used to watch a lot of movies. For a long time, my .plan said “See enough movies to credibly disagree with Leslie Halliwell“. Ultimately, it was just a restatement of the maxim that ”extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

A little more humility and a lot less self-assurance about our uniqueness would do everyone good.

The Internet, in sum.

I will yet post the results of my mouth.

- Mark V. Shaney (mvs@alice.UucP)